9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... servation of CESTAT that no concealment was made by the assessee is erroneous in law. The point of reference stands answered accordingly, in favour of the Revenue. - 9 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 16-6-2008 - Prafulla C. Pant and Dharam Veer, JJ. [Order per : Prafulla C. Pant, J.]. - This reference (wrongly registered as Appeal), made under Section 35-G of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-I, Mangal Pandey Nagar, Meerut, is directed against the order dated 21-3-2005, passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as CESTAT), in E/Appeal No. 3154/2004-NB(B), whereby the appeal of the revenue was partly allowed. 2. Heard learned counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re of steel pipes. It is alleged that the respondent company wilfully abstained from writing to the said authority with an intention to evade duty on the steel pipes by suppressing the facts regarding the nature and kind of raw material used by it. At the time of recording of statement under Section 14 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, before the Superintendent (Preventive), Division Saharanpur, Mr. Manoj Kumar, one of the Directors of respondent company stated that their product i.e. M.S. conduit pipes were made of raw materials namely bars, other bars of non-alloy steel and flat rolled product and hence were not considered to be dutiable by them by virtue of exemption under Notification No. 202/88 because of which clearances of M. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent as it was only in the letter of the respondent company dated 29-4-1991 that the details regarding date of production, total production, total purchase of inputs along with its thickness were furnished, and as such, the Department came to know about the matter only from the date of receipt of letter dated 29-4-1991. It is further stated that the respondent company's failure to submit the required declaration or apply for a licence, establishes the attempt to conceal the facts from the department. Thus, there is no doubt that the respondent company intentionally contravened Central Excise rules in order to evade payment of duty leviable on their goods. Therefore, the department is justified in imposing the penalty on the respondent. Per c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w.e.f. 29-3-90, whereas they have SSI registration certificate dated 29-5-1990 issued by Directorate of Industries. Thereafter, only after a gap of 10 months period, they wrote a letter to the Sector Officer, Range Roorkee, to issue a certificate to the effect that their product does not attract the levy of excise. It was further found that in this letter the assessee company has shown quantity of strips/bars purchased by them and quantity of production during the period of March 1990 and 1990-91. In this letter, the party has nowhere shown any ground to avail exemption vis-a-vis notification No., if any. Similarly in the gate passes attached to the letter dated 5-6-1991 description of the goods was shown as rectangular bars. Moreover, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
